Note: The following content does not constitute legal advice and is for reference only. Please consult a professional lawyer for specific circumstances. If you want to argue in your defense that the defendant's disclosure of trade secrets was for the purpose of promoting competition and innovation in the industry, so as to reduce the penalty, you may need to consider the following directions to build argumentation ideas and evidence chains: 1. Clarify the defendant's motives a. Collect written evidence: Look for internal emails, memos, chat records or other documents published by the defendant before and after the leak to prove that his remarks have clearly expressed the hope to promote healthy competition in the industry or expose unreasonable monopoly behavior and closed innovation models through information disclosure. b. Description of the background of the behavior: Detailed description of the defendant's corporate or industry background, such as the existence of obvious market monopoly or unfair competition, so that his actions have the inherent logic of social or public interests. 2. Introduce relevant theories of public interest and innovation promotion a. Academic material support: Find academic literature or policy documents related to competition policy, antitrust and innovation promotion, and prove that in certain cases, information disclosure can counter closed manipulation and stimulate a more open and innovative competitive environment. b. Comparative cases: Find precedents of successful public interest defense in similar cases. Although this defense is relatively rare in trade secrets cases, it can be explained through comparison: Under certain circumstances, leaking information may provide an opportunity to promote information sharing and healthy competition within the industry. 3. Prove the positive effects of the leak results a. Specific impact analysis: If possible, provide data or expert testimony to show that the leak behavior has changed the industry competition pattern to a certain extent, reduced monopoly risks or promoted technology/product innovation. b. Subsequent industry changes: Explain the industry supervision, enterprise reform or market response after the incident, and prove that the leak behavior has brought positive adjustment effects to the industry and has practical significance in promoting innovation and competition. 4. Emphasize that the defendant did not maliciously infringe on trade secrets for personal gain, but was motivated by public interest a. Comparison of personal gain and public interest: Discuss that the defendant's behavior is more aimed at improving the overall market order and promoting fair competition than obtaining illegal personal gain, and explain it from the perspective of ethics and social benefits. b. Reduce the determination of subjective malice: Through the above evidence and arguments, try to explain that the defendant lacked the traditional "malpractice" intention in the process of leaking secrets, but made a relatively rational judgment in a specific situation. 5. Consider the legal framework and judicial practice a. Legal loopholes and exemptions: Check whether there are legal provisions similar to "whistleblower protection" or "public interest exemption" in the relevant countries or regions. If the defendant meets the conditions, try to strive for legal leniency. b. Balance the protection of trade secrets and the public interest: Emphasize that although the protection of trade secrets is important, in some cases, the interests of the entire industry and even the society as a whole may take precedence, and strive for the court to adopt this trade-off consideration when sentencing. In general, this defense strategy requires solid evidence support, sufficient factual explanation and rigorous legal theory argumentation, and always faces the difficulty of strict protection of trade secrets law. It is recommended that you cooperate with professional lawyers familiar with this field to formulate the most appropriate defense plan based on the specific circumstances of the case and regional judicial practice.